My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-12-06 P & Z Handouts
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2016
>
2016-12-06 P & Z Handouts
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2019 9:48:54 AM
Creation date
12/8/2016 11:24:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
To: Planning Commission From: <br />Centerville <br />File: 707 20th Avenue Comprehensive Date: <br />Plan Amendment, Rezoning <br />John W. Shardlow, FAICP <br />St. Paul <br />December 6, 2016 <br />Reference:Muellner Blacktop Co. Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, & Rezoning, <br />From R-2 Single Family Residential to B-1 Commercial <br />The Subject Property is a long-standing pre-existing use on a triangularly shaped parcel. It currently <br />takes access off 20m Avenue N (County Road 54) via a driveway, but lacks sufficient lot width at the <br />roadway to be a developable lot. The property contains a house and a large outbuilding that is <br />used to store equipment for the blacktop business. <br />The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for Low/Medium Density Residential, although all <br />the surrounding residential land was platted without any provision for future access to serve this <br />parcel. <br />1*0109611011 <br />The property owner is entitled to use the property in a reasonable way. Several factors, including the <br />existing buildings on the site, the shape of the property, the proximity of the creek and the <br />relationship between the parcel and the surrounding lots combine to create several practical <br />difficulties. The City should be fair in working with this property owner to ensure that he, or his <br />successors can put the property to a reasonable use. <br />If the applicant is willing to submit a letter waiving the 60 Day Rule, then my advice would be to <br />continue this application. If he needs an answer immediately my recommendation is to deny the <br />application. <br />If the application is continued the applicant will not lose his application fee, During the time of the <br />continuance he could proceed to market the property and hopefully return with an actual business <br />use for the property. This would allow a site plan to be reviewed that would allow the City to address <br />screening, lighting, noise, building design, landscaping, signage, and many other features. <br />It might also be possible to combine the property with some of the adjacent commercial property <br />to facilitate a more efficient and attractive development with better screening and buffering of <br />adjacent residential areas, <br />If the applicant cannot find a new owner who has the resources to reconfigure and redevelop the <br />property, the City could consider approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for the property. This could <br />allow the future owner to use the existing structures for a temporary period (to be negotiated). In <br />exchange for that approval the City could require some reasonable improvements to be made to <br />the property and attach conditions regulating the temporary use of the property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.